Catholic Church has skeptic arrested for explaining miracle

[Jon Miller]

According to the Christian Bible, yes. You 'Mercans should try reading it.

I don't think you have read it carefully.

Even Paul who was politically mister "don't rock the boat" said that there was no difference between slave and free and that slaves who can get free should.

JM
edit: Imran's reply is better

[Dr Strangelove]

Getting back to the OP, what was the charge under which this guy was to be arrested?

[BlackCat]

When he didn´t bow to these demands, the catholic church invoked a paragraph within the indian penalty code regarding blasphemy, accusing him of blasphemy and hurting religious feelings

[rah]

Yeah, the truth does that frequently.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If it was good, clearly they would not have made the distinction between Christians and non Christians. It was tolerated, in the sense that it was understood to be an evil. Paul even clarifies and says - "if you can go, then go". But he stops short from commanding the slaves to leave.

If not "good", then at the very least accepted. And how does one "tolerate" evil if you are the church? Isn't that what we are commanded to NOT do?

You don't really know if most christians will own slaves in the future or not. Oh and we had to fight a war and kill our own brothers to end slavery. Is that what you call the Holy Spirit in action? Do you think that Paul would have told people to kill to end slavery?

Do you believe that everyone accepts the Holy Spirit when freely offered? Or do you think that some people reject what the Spirit is trying to tell them?

FWIW, William Wilberforce didn't have to start a war to end slavery in the UK.

[Kidlicious]

Do you believe that everyone accepts the Holy Spirit when freely offered? Or do you think that some people reject what the Spirit is trying to tell them?
.

Yes people sometimes reject what the Holy Spirit is telling them. But you don't need the Holy Spirit to tell you that slavery is wrong unless you don't have a conscience. And if you don't have a conscience then you won't listen to the Holy Spirit anyway. I think that the Holy Spirit is more concerned with spiritual matters. 1 John 5:19 says that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one. This was written after Jesus was crucified. I don't see anything in the Bible that says that it's different today. It isn't, and it won't be until the second advent. The fact that slavery is illegal now isn't a spiritual matter.

[Ben Kenobi]

If not "good", then at the very least accepted. And how does one "tolerate" evil if you are the church? Isn't that what we are commanded to NOT do?

People are free to sin. If they choose to reject Christ and indulge in sin, then we have to live with that. Our obligation is to give them a better option - but it is still their choice to make. That's what I mean by tolerate. As for 'acceptance', bullcrap. Every church that accepts this bull**** is going to blow away like the sand.

[Ben Kenobi]

When he didn´t bow to these demands, the catholic church invoked a paragraph within the indian penalty code regarding blasphemy, accusing him of blasphemy and hurting religious feelings

And where did this penal code come from? I wonder if Blackcat will report that this particular code has been used by the Hindus to shut down Catholic churches. Oddly enough I don't see that being reported on Apolyton.

[Ben Kenobi]

Either you don't understand anything I say, or you're evilly twisting my words. Which one is it?

How about a third option, in that I fully understand the snow job you're trying to pull here, and don't like it one bit.

why do you not first try to understand me before you reply?

The problem is that I do understand. As a Christian, we have an obligation to get it right, and getting it wrong about what Christ teaches is a serious problem.

Are you just a one way 'debater'. How do you think that you can ever convince your 'opponents' if you can't even understand them. What's your purpose?

Do you not realize that I'm a convert, Robert? Yes, I understand the atheists and agnostics and what many of them do believe. Because I was one of them myself. My purpose is straightforward, to make sure that people who do encounter Christianity encounter the truth. Nothing more or less. Truth is the most important thing. Telling an atheist that Christ thinks he's an ok fellow, and that he really doesn't need Jesus to make his life better, how is that going to motivate anyone to believe in Him? Wouldn't they be happier staying where they are, if Christianity is just a bunch of watered-down bull****.

People crave, then and now, the real deal. Jesus gave that to them. Our duty is to carry on his mission here.

Having a hierarchy means that one has authorization over the other.

Heirarchy simply means that you have a structure, that you have a division of labor and that you assign the task of overseeing to the elders. Which you do do. Why can't you simply admit that you were bull****ting us by saying "we don't have a heirarchy". Yes you do. You have elders and you have deacons. What do you have to gain by denying what is obvious?

And the local church is self authorized. There are bigger synodes, etc. but in the end the local church makes it's own rules.

So not only do you have a heirarchy within the church, but your synod has a structure similar to the Catholic church. What would happen to a church that defied the rules of the synod? And if I'm not mistaken - depending on where you are in Europe - your church isn't even free. If the state passes laws, your church is bound to those laws. They can't defy the laws even at the cost of remaining true to what Christ teaches.

America is very, very different. There's no 'state church' here.

Just projecting your own ideas about me on me will not help you.

Fine, then. If you love Him more, state that Christ teaches that homosexuality is sinful.

Only if you really understand what I'm trying to say you can legitly disagree with it.

I was an atheist Robert, you're just blowing the usual bull**** up my ass. "Oh no, we don't tell anybody that they are sinners", bullcrap. People sin. Everyone sins. I sin, you sin, and we are all in need of redemption and repentence. You may think that you're doing people a favor by telling them that they are a-ok, but you're not. When people are sick, does it help them if they go to a doctor and he says, "no you're fine"? People who are sick need a doctor who is willing to tell them how it really is and get them the help they really need.

What I said is true, yet I have no authorization over you.

Ok, so why do you believe that Christ died and rose again? That's right there in the Nicaean Creed. It's right there in that 'ancient document' that you say has no validity.

But the core of my faith is not that I believe that certain things happened.

Then you are not a Christian Robert. Christ is the Son of God, because he really did die on the cross. He really did suffer, die and was buried, and rose again. As true as Caesar crossing the rubicon. Do you believe this, Robert? That he really did die, or is it just some bull**** story that Christians made up?

Let's get rid of the old ones.

From what I can see, you would toss out Christ altogether and leave what? 20th century Northern European culture? Why not simply go to a rave if that's what you want? You can get that in many other places.

Perhaps new ideas, new facts, new insights and new interpertations can do good to our faith.

Insofar as they corroborate with the Faith. I agree, I believe there are room for improvements, and I don't believe that just because it's always been done this way, that it is the best way of doing things. However, I also believe that if it was done a particular way, that it was done this way for a reason.

The Catholic church has made some tremendous changes over the last 50 years, probably some of the most substantial in the last 500 years, maybe longer. The establishment of the Ordiniariate, is the first time we've seen anything like it. We're finally getting a new english translation of scripture - it would be nice to have a faithful translation to replace my Douay-Rheims, which is rather old. I don't believe the church should stand still.

However, I do believe that the doctrine of the church is correct. We shouldn't be capitulating and changing doctrine because the world believes us to be wrong. That includes things like contraception, homosexuality, divorce, etc. And I'm not just tossing that at you, we have serious internal problems over these particular issues. A huge part of it is that people, our people, are not taught the catechesis to understand why.

rethinking the gospel will burry the gospel deeper into the heart of the believer

Bullcrap. If I want to 'rethink it', then why bother reading it? You read it to understand it, not change it to read what you prefer it to read. I was blown away when I first got my hands on the Gospel, just how much bullcrap people like you had stuffed my head about it. **** was real - yo. Jesus didn't talk about this pansy-ass bullcrap. Jesus didn't put up with it. Jesus was hardcore man, "leave your father and your mother", "store up for yourself treasures in heaven", "leave, come and follow me". Jesus rebuked Judas for preaching the bull**** we all hear, "why didn't you sell the perfume to the poor", because he ****ing understood that everything has it's proper time. He's the Son of God, and this was his anointing before being given up as a sacrifice, for all of our sins.

I don't know how you can read that and not be blown away by the fact that he put up with all that bull**** people lay on each other and cut right to it to the core of the matter. We only get one shot, Robert. And we have to get it right.

Never debate the exaple, just stick to the topic.

So, you bring them up and are unwilling to defend your statements? Lame. Man, I was a protestant. I never would have put up with being called out and just letting it slide.

I don't remember the exact whereabouts so I have to cease this.

Speaks volumes.

Perhaps, the 'errors' that you are speaking of, are errors because you haven't taken the time to do your homework, Robert.

Thus a prior teaching that we now would find out about that it's false can't be corrected?

There hasn't been a prior teaching of the Church that's been shown to be false. There have been plenty of serious issues (hence all the ecumenical councils), that have hammered out much of the theology, and doubtless, there will be more to come.


Or did the church never have false teachings? Has the church never made an error? No pope ever said something ex cathedra without making an error? Are you 100% sure about that?

My point is that what you consider to be salt turns out to be not salt but something that bad tasting that people reject the entire gospel for it.

My point is that you're not salty at all, you've lost it. Salt is bitter. Salt that's no longer bitter, isn't salt anymore, and isn't giving you what you need.

First one must know that he's a sinner. The mirror of the law is used for that. But the law isn't able to make us better people. (Romans 7).

That means preaching the Law. People must be aware of the Law to know what is or is not sin. That means teaching that homosexuality is sinful, and preaching morals. The Law is all about morality. You seem confused on this point. You are right that the Law in itself isn't enough, that we need Christ in order to live in accordance to the law - but that doesn't mean we don't need the Law at all. We need the Law to understand what it is that God wants and expects of us.

We could take away the law, and could then say: "Look, there's no law, so we're not sinners."

Robert, that's *exactly* what you are doing when you say that Christ doesn't preach morality and that homosexuality isn't sinful. You're giving people an out, when that this precisely the opposite of what Christ says.

What 'saves' you, not sinning anymore?

Christ's substitutionary sacrifice on the Cross, the debt of our sins has been paid through His blood. By acknowledging, confessing and repenting my sins, Christ offers me eternal life.

If I sin 5 seconds after I repented, and die 10 seconds after I repented.... will I be lost then?

Depends on the sin. If I sin against the holy spirit and do not repent, then yes, I will be among the lost. You're right, I can't confess everything, I don't even know all the ways that my sin hurts other people. But in absolution, Christ offers me forgiveness for my sins. Confession isn't for God's sake, it's for mine.

You must repent. It is not enough to acknowledge that you are sinful - you must repent. You must turn away and leave your sinful life. We all have to keep trying to become better, to become more like Christ.

John 3:16 says we just need faith.

Matthew 5:19-20

Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven

Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

His own words. Jesus is real, man. He doesn't put up with this half-assed bull****. He wants all of you, or nothing.

So we first force the notion of sin through their troats

Unless one is convicted of sin, then there is no need for repentence. Look at what Paul preached to the Romans, to the Jews and to the Gentiles. Did Paul say, "I'm sure you are perfectly fine people who have no need for God in your lives, but just to be on the safe side? No.

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.

They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen

All right there. Paul didn't believe in I'm OK, and you're OK.

, and then when they have swallowed it we force salvation through it as well?

I was on the other side Robert. I became convicted when I read what Christ had to say, that he understood, better than anyone else, what I'm really like. And he still gave himself up to die on the cross. Nobody forced salvation on me, but I had excellent teachers who taught me about Christ. And they did not pull punches.

Had I been told what you say here, I'd still be an atheist. What's the point?

Read acts, it's interesting to see how Paul (and others) to the Jews always bases the gospel on the Thora. But when Paul is speaking to the gentiles he's using another road to get to the gospel. He's not first teaching them the thora, making them accept it, and then bring the gospel.

All they will do is considering you an outcast and an annoying person, not worth to listen to.

Jesus himself was an outcast and an annoying person. Good is not necessarily Nice, Robert. Same with Love. The best love kicks you in the ass and tells you work harder.

I'll get back to this one later, it's too much to answer it now.

It's really the central point of all this...

You want to hand every individual a detailed list of their sins (according to your idea about what a sin is?)

When I can read Corinthians instead, which does just that? And it's not my idea, it's what scripture teaches. I list that one because that's the one you're covering for, and the one that you seem frightened to preach against. Sin is sin. Sodomy isn't more frightful than say murder, etc. If we can preach that murder is an evil then we can also preach that Sodomy is an evil too.

If that's true, how comes you apparently only talk about homosexuality all the time?

It's like asking why everyone in an AA meeting is an alcoholic.

Why I'm bringing it up with you is because it's the one you're afraid to preach against.

Just understand that you're living in a world where homosexuality is accepted.

And I'll keep preaching against it in the hopes that some will turn away. People did that for me, the least I can do is repay the favor.

Answer the question, do you not agree that homosexuality in Moses time was different then homosexuality in Paul's time, and our time?

No. Now answer mine. Why do you believe they are different? Does Jesus say that homosexuality in Moses' time is different from homosexuality in his, and in ours?

The gospel is eternal.
Moral applications in time and place depend from time to time.

Nope. Doesn't work that way, Robert. You say that Christ is a liar.

That even already happens in the Bible. Old testamentic rules for nomadic israelians are casted away in the New Testament.

Right, that's because Jesus, the Son of God, explains that the OT was the beginners handbook and the Gospels the advanced manual. Rather than permitting divorce, he condemns it saying that marriage is for life, and so on. He takes the OT and explains why it didn't go as far as it should.

Paul even says that people can have different ideas on times, days and feasts, on what's clean and unclean, yet all do it still for God to serve him.

True, there are issues where one can have legitimate disagreement. I regard the perpetual virginity as one of these since while it is Catholic doctrine, I don't see why anyone who isn't Catholic ought to be bound by it. Contraception is a whole different ball of wax. It's never been a Catholic-only teaching, until 1932, all the protestants were in agreement, Luther and all the reformers were in agreement, etc.

I agree with them. I do not accept them as authoritive.

Ok. You should have said that then.

it wouldn't cost me anything to reject it.

Yeah, it would, Robert. If it didn't cost you anything you'd be doing as I do. But it would and you're not willing to pay that price.

Christ is pretter clear on this, that unrepentant sinners will be condemned to the fires of hell.

Matthew 7:21

Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

[loinburger]

How about a third option, in that I fully understand the snow job you're trying to pull here, and don't like it one bit.



The problem is that I do understand. As a Christian, we have an obligation to get it right, and getting it wrong about what Christ teaches is a serious problem.



Do you not realize that I'm a convert, Robert? Yes, I understand the atheists and agnostics and what many of them do believe. Because I was one of them myself. My purpose is straightforward, to make sure that people who do encounter Christianity encounter the truth. Nothing more or less. Truth is the most important thing. Telling an atheist that Christ thinks he's an ok fellow, and that he really doesn't need Jesus to make his life better, how is that going to motivate anyone to believe in Him? Wouldn't they be happier staying where they are, if Christianity is just a bunch of watered-down bull****.

People crave, then and now, the real deal. Jesus gave that to them. Our duty is to carry on his mission here.



Heirarchy simply means that you have a structure, that you have a division of labor and that you assign the task of overseeing to the elders. Which you do do. Why can't you simply admit that you were bull****ting us by saying "we don't have a heirarchy". Yes you do. You have elders and you have deacons. What do you have to gain by denying what is obvious?



So not only do you have a heirarchy within the church, but your synod has a structure similar to the Catholic church. What would happen to a church that defied the rules of the synod? And if I'm not mistaken - depending on where you are in Europe - your church isn't even free. If the state passes laws, your church is bound to those laws. They can't defy the laws even at the cost of remaining true to what Christ teaches.

America is very, very different. There's no 'state church' here.



Fine, then. If you love Him more, state that Christ teaches that homosexuality is sinful.



I was an atheist Robert, you're just blowing the usual bull**** up my ass. "Oh no, we don't tell anybody that they are sinners", bullcrap. People sin. Everyone sins. I sin, you sin, and we are all in need of redemption and repentence. You may think that you're doing people a favor by telling them that they are a-ok, but you're not. When people are sick, does it help them if they go to a doctor and he says, "no you're fine"? People who are sick need a doctor who is willing to tell them how it really is and get them the help they really need.



Ok, so why do you believe that Christ died and rose again? That's right there in the Nicaean Creed. It's right there in that 'ancient document' that you say has no validity.



Then you are not a Christian Robert. Christ is the Son of God, because he really did die on the cross. He really did suffer, die and was buried, and rose again. As true as Caesar crossing the rubicon. Do you believe this, Robert? That he really did die, or is it just some bull**** story that Christians made up?



From what I can see, you would toss out Christ altogether and leave what? 20th century Northern European culture? Why not simply go to a rave if that's what you want? You can get that in many other places.



Insofar as they corroborate with the Faith. I agree, I believe there are room for improvements, and I don't believe that just because it's always been done this way, that it is the best way of doing things. However, I also believe that if it was done a particular way, that it was done this way for a reason.

The Catholic church has made some tremendous changes over the last 50 years, probably some of the most substantial in the last 500 years, maybe longer. The establishment of the Ordiniariate, is the first time we've seen anything like it. We're finally getting a new english translation of scripture - it would be nice to have a faithful translation to replace my Douay-Rheims, which is rather old. I don't believe the church should stand still.

However, I do believe that the doctrine of the church is correct. We shouldn't be capitulating and changing doctrine because the world believes us to be wrong. That includes things like contraception, homosexuality, divorce, etc. And I'm not just tossing that at you, we have serious internal problems over these particular issues. A huge part of it is that people, our people, are not taught the catechesis to understand why.



Bullcrap. If I want to 'rethink it', then why bother reading it? You read it to understand it, not change it to read what you prefer it to read. I was blown away when I first got my hands on the Gospel, just how much bullcrap people like you had stuffed my head about it. **** was real - yo. Jesus didn't talk about this pansy-ass bullcrap. Jesus didn't put up with it. Jesus was hardcore man, "leave your father and your mother", "store up for yourself treasures in heaven", "leave, come and follow me". Jesus rebuked Judas for preaching the bull**** we all hear, "why didn't you sell the perfume to the poor", because he ****ing understood that everything has it's proper time. He's the Son of God, and this was his anointing before being given up as a sacrifice, for all of our sins.

I don't know how you can read that and not be blown away by the fact that he put up with all that bull**** people lay on each other and cut right to it to the core of the matter. We only get one shot, Robert. And we have to get it right.



So, you bring them up and are unwilling to defend your statements? Lame. Man, I was a protestant. I never would have put up with being called out and just letting it slide.



Speaks volumes.

Perhaps, the 'errors' that you are speaking of, are errors because you haven't taken the time to do your homework, Robert.



There hasn't been a prior teaching of the Church that's been shown to be false. There have been plenty of serious issues (hence all the ecumenical councils), that have hammered out much of the theology, and doubtless, there will be more to come.


Or did the church never have false teachings? Has the church never made an error? No pope ever said something ex cathedra without making an error? Are you 100% sure about that?



My point is that you're not salty at all, you've lost it. Salt is bitter. Salt that's no longer bitter, isn't salt anymore, and isn't giving you what you need.



That means preaching the Law. People must be aware of the Law to know what is or is not sin. That means teaching that homosexuality is sinful, and preaching morals. The Law is all about morality. You seem confused on this point. You are right that the Law in itself isn't enough, that we need Christ in order to live in accordance to the law - but that doesn't mean we don't need the Law at all. We need the Law to understand what it is that God wants and expects of us.



Robert, that's *exactly* what you are doing when you say that Christ doesn't preach morality and that homosexuality isn't sinful. You're giving people an out, when that this precisely the opposite of what Christ says.



Christ's substitutionary sacrifice on the Cross, the debt of our sins has been paid through His blood. By acknowledging, confessing and repenting my sins, Christ offers me eternal life.



Depends on the sin. If I sin against the holy spirit and do not repent, then yes, I will be among the lost. You're right, I can't confess everything, I don't even know all the ways that my sin hurts other people. But in absolution, Christ offers me forgiveness for my sins. Confession isn't for God's sake, it's for mine.





Matthew 5:19-20





His own words. Jesus is real, man. He doesn't put up with this half-assed bull****. He wants all of you, or nothing.



Unless one is convicted of sin, then there is no need for repentence. Look at what Paul preached to the Romans, to the Jews and to the Gentiles. Did Paul say, "I'm sure you are perfectly fine people who have no need for God in your lives, but just to be on the safe side? No.



All right there. Paul didn't believe in I'm OK, and you're OK.



I was on the other side Robert. I became convicted when I read what Christ had to say, that he understood, better than anyone else, what I'm really like. And he still gave himself up to die on the cross. Nobody forced salvation on me, but I had excellent teachers who taught me about Christ. And they did not pull punches.

Had I been told what you say here, I'd still be an atheist. What's the point?

Read acts, it's interesting to see how Paul (and others) to the Jews always bases the gospel on the Thora. But when Paul is speaking to the gentiles he's using another road to get to the gospel. He's not first teaching them the thora, making them accept it, and then bring the gospel.



Jesus himself was an outcast and an annoying person. Good is not necessarily Nice, Robert. Same with Love. The best love kicks you in the ass and tells you work harder.



It's really the central point of all this...



When I can read Corinthians instead, which does just that? And it's not my idea, it's what scripture teaches. I list that one because that's the one you're covering for, and the one that you seem frightened to preach against. Sin is sin. Sodomy isn't more frightful than say murder, etc. If we can preach that murder is an evil then we can also preach that Sodomy is an evil too.



It's like asking why everyone in an AA meeting is an alcoholic.

Why I'm bringing it up with you is because it's the one you're afraid to preach against.




And I'll keep preaching against it in the hopes that some will turn away. People did that for me, the least I can do is repay the favor.



No. Now answer mine. Why do you believe they are different? Does Jesus say that homosexuality in Moses' time is different from homosexuality in his, and in ours?



Nope. Doesn't work that way, Robert. You say that Christ is a liar.



Right, that's because Jesus, the Son of God, explains that the OT was the beginners handbook and the Gospels the advanced manual. Rather than permitting divorce, he condemns it saying that marriage is for life, and so on. He takes the OT and explains why it didn't go as far as it should.



True, there are issues where one can have legitimate disagreement. I regard the perpetual virginity as one of these since while it is Catholic doctrine, I don't see why anyone who isn't Catholic ought to be bound by it. Contraception is a whole different ball of wax. It's never been a Catholic-only teaching, until 1932, all the protestants were in agreement, Luther and all the reformers were in agreement, etc.



Ok. You should have said that then.



Yeah, it would, Robert. If it didn't cost you anything you'd be doing as I do. But it would and you're not willing to pay that price.



Matthew 7:21

I disagree

[Elok]

Here is something more or less relevant from a Catholic who was not a pathological liar, just to shake things up:

Of course the real truth is that science has introduced no new principle into the matter at all. A man can be a Christian to the end of the world, for the simple reason that a man could have been an Atheist from the beginning of it. The materialism of things is on the face of things; it does not require any science to find it out. A man who has lived and loved falls down dead and the worms eat him. That is Materialism if you like. That is Atheism if you like. If mankind has believed in spite of that, it can believe in spite of anything. But why our human lot is made any more hopeless because we know the names of all the worms who eat him, or the names of all the parts of him that they eat, is to a thoughtful mind somewhat difficult to discover.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes people sometimes reject what the Holy Spirit is telling them. But you don't need the Holy Spirit to tell you that slavery is wrong unless you don't have a conscience. And if you don't have a conscience then you won't listen to the Holy Spirit anyway. I think that the Holy Spirit is more concerned with spiritual matters. 1 John 5:19 says that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one. This was written after Jesus was crucified. I don't see anything in the Bible that says that it's different today. It isn't, and it won't be until the second advent. The fact that slavery is illegal now isn't a spiritual matter.

Slavery is against God's will. The Spirit doesn't just inform us on personal spiritual matters. I think describing it that way would shock Jesus to the core. The Spirit guides us on what is right and what is wrong. That means more than simply personal spiritual matters, but also injustices in our world. Jesus called out more than few injustices going on in 1st Century Palestine among the Jewish religious leaders and the Roman occupiers.

[Imran Siddiqui]

People are free to sin. If they choose to reject Christ and indulge in sin, then we have to live with that. Our obligation is to give them a better option - but it is still their choice to make. That's what I mean by tolerate. As for 'acceptance', bullcrap. Every church that accepts this bull**** is going to blow away like the sand.

The Papal Bulls did more than just tell them they had to choose between sinful slavery and non-sinful anti-slavery, they legitimized Portuguese and Spanish slavery of AmerIndians and Muslims. It was accepted by the Vatican. The only bullcrap is in your posts asserting the opposite.

[Robert]

Ben, you're misquoting me, partially quoting me, and then based on your misquotes and partial quotes you jump to conclusions and decide that I'm not a real christian.
You're not trying to understand my point, and debate that point, you're not even trying set up an argument, you're just a one-way trick pony that bend my words in such a way so that you can resend your monologue.

Answer me again and address the points I'm trying to make, and you'll get a response.
I'm not trowing you words and thoughts just only so that you can re-arrange them in the way that pleases you so that you can feed on it and do with it as you like.

And the fact that you're telling me all the time that I'm not a real christian underlines this. Who're you to judge?

[SlowwHand]

God must spend a lot of time alternately laughing and shaking His head, and both together.